Metaphysics

Never underestimate the power of a feather. If the angle is right, a light swipe across the facade could bowl over Mount Rushmore.

Highly unlikely. 

But less so than the chance of Meta suffering any long-term damage after having recently being found liable by two juries in New Mexico and California for their cynical psychic entrapment of children and coordinated attack on their innocence using predatory algorithms.

Meta, which includes Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp, must pay $375 million in compensatory damages. Their 4th quarter earnings last year were just a whisker under $60 Billion.

They deserve a doomsday bomb of retribution, not a dainty, almost imperceptible "slap on the wrist." The government needs to play hard ball with them. 

Not a nerf ball. They should pay reparations equal to at least one year's profits.

In a related though different case, a jury awarded $6 million dollars in combined compensatory and punitive damages to a 17 year-old, who suffered crippling mental addictions after a decade of victimization by defendants who deliberately misrepresented their safety of their platforms for child usage.

Google (which owns YouTube) was held liable for 30 percent; the remainder will be bravely borne by Meta. That's an equivalent hit to their corporate pocketbooks of Elon Musk being fleeced for a wholesale-priced peanut butter sandwich.

These companies own the nation. They control its direction and the world's future. Ultimately, they exact the government's obedience. They are the "force of nature," and nature's laws, as they govern human behavior, have been adjusted accordingly.

The penalties assessed against them are less than a spit in the ocean.

They're even a clearing of the throat. They'll get the last laugh and never stop hooting.

The trajectory of civilization is at their command. The three co-equal branches of governmental dysfunction go through the motions of holding them accountable, but are at their mercy.

They are the geniuses of the Great Industrial Replacement Reality, in which workers are swapped for robots and AI gadgetry. 

The triumph of the Rule of Law is a shell game. Those who believe otherwise should be strait-jacketed and held for felonious gullibility.

The National Conference of State Legislators notes that at least 20 states have laws to protect children from sexual exploitation and other predations of social media. Meta's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg and Google, et al, appear to believe that the benefits offset the risks of content moderation.

To him and his cronies, defending freedom of speech is a fancy code for protecting windfall revenue.

These devils have always had governments locked in on speed dial. Karma is more an illusion than it is a bitch.

The two jury verdicts triggered a 6 percent drop in Meta Platforms stock. Zuckerberg personally lost around $20 billion overnight.

That left him with a few hundred billion to tide him over.  He'll regain that sum sooner than will federal workers, pawns in the government shutdown, recover their overdue wages.

Snap, Pinterest and Reddit were among the social media stocks that also got spanked.

Internet tycoons hide behind Section 230 of the 1998 Communications Decency Act, which exempts their companies from liability, no matter how egregiously their user have been injured by traceable online posts.

A new case, from thousands of plaintiffs, alleging Meta's culpability, is being brought by 30 state attorneys general in San Francisco. If we were living in a nobler world, the defendants would be neutralized.

Instead, they'll be emboldened, even if they lose.

The plaintiffs' strategy is to use the 1998 "Master Settlement Case" against racketeering Big Tobacco as a model. That resulted in a settlement of over $200 billion, and the departure of the iconic "Marlboro Man" and some catchy jingles from television.

It also led to a decline in smoking, but social media will never slump. It is far more addictive than nicotine. It has a stranglehold on our freewill and has paralyzed both our capacity and inclination for self-discipline.

It's a safe bet that the defendants will be convicted, and there will be a resulting fine-tuning of regulations.  Patchwork remedies will be fabricated for the ills and sins of the social media universe. They may make a show of flagellating their algorithms a little, for appearance's sake.

But there will be no meaningful punitive damage. Enforcement will be symbolic, cursory and illusionary. When nobody is watching, there will be backsliding. 

A single droplet of mildly infectious phlegm, spat into the sea by a solo swimmer, would harm its ecological balance more than will the fines levied upon YouTube and Meta chasten them for having permanently traumatizing children.   

The government has learned to negotiate with terrorists, whether among nations or industries.

Meta and Google are appealing the recent verdicts against them. In one case, it's posited that the injured defendant's pre-existing "family dynamics" were at fault, and that social media may have actually been therapeutic. 

It's the standard "blame the victim" ploy.

The plaintiffs knew that "these companies-built machines were designed to addict the brains of children, and they did it on purpose." They cited a Meta study, called Project Myst," which likened their effects to gambling and drug pushing. 

A litigator for Meta, who must have practiced in the mirror how to keep a straight face, floated the notion that punitive damages need not be considered. A lawyer for YouTube, conveyed to the vindicated plaintiff, the "huge hope" that the platform had "enriched your life and allowed you to express yourself."

According to the independent news source The Conversation, "the distinction between 'platform design' and 'content curation' has been central to how courts have analyzed First Amendment arguments, regarding 'infinite scroll' and notification systems."

Companies cannot encrypt and monitor all activities, and there should be some expectation of personal responsibility on the part of users, but this is especially problematic with minors. It is too much to ask, and would serve only to deflect the companies' burden of obligation.

As the New York Post snarkily observes, "If the company hadn't spent so much time and resources building now-shuttered features to censor and 'fact check' disfavored political speech between 2017 and 2024, it could have prioritized actual safety concerns."

A matter of rotten apples and oranges?  Failure to multitask?

It's not just a red herring.  It's a red herring that blushes.

The New Mexico and California cases are prologues to an unfolding drama that unfortunately needs no spoiler alert. Something good may come of it, but there is too much latitude in what that "something" may amount to.

Educators, at least, would welcome some curbing of Snapchat and TikTok.

The social media companies may be reined in, but they can never be made to heel. If we think otherwise, we're fooling ourselves.

They and the government they dominate are the dog; peoples' rights are its frazzled tail.

Choosing to be fooled may be just the tonic we need.